Appeal 6005554

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a self-build house at [address], Garboldisham, Norfolk [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/1955/FMIN, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, having particular regard to whether the development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Garboldisham Conservation Area; and • the effect of the development on the integrity of [name].

The Garboldisham Conservation Area (CA) is characterised by loose-knit residential development, with historic links to agriculture. The majority of [address] falls within the CA with a predominantly linear pattern of road fronting development. Whilst there is variety in the CA, including age, scale, style and roofscape, there is a general uniformity in layout and spacing and a consistent use of traditional materials. Accordingly, in so far as is relevant to this appeal, the significance of the CA derives from the density of development, and the use of traditional materials and detailing, which contribute significantly to the area, creating a coherent historic village character.

The appeal site lies between the road fronting property [address] and the backland properties Nos 83 and 84. It comprises an area of garden land with a mown lawn, a mature tree and some planting. The site contributes to the low-density character of the area and has a neutral effect on the significance of the CA. The proposal would infill the site with a dormer bungalow of modest scale. In terms of siting, scale and form the proposal would reflect the grain and respond to the established low-density character of this part of the village.

The Breckland Design Guide identifies roofscapes as a defining element of local character within historic settlements and advises that dormer windows, where appropriate, should be modest in scale, limited in number, well-proportioned and clearly subordinate to the main roof form. It further cautions against overly complex, visually cluttered or contrived elevations, particularly where these would detract from the simplicity and coherence of traditional buildings in heritage contexts.

Whilst there would be three dormers located to the rear of the dwelling, they would be subservient in scale to the main roof slope and traditionally detailed as seen elsewhere within the CA. Although the central dormer would be larger than the others and there would be large areas of brick work, the elevation would simple, appearing visually balanced.

I note the concerns regarding the modern fenestration. However, given the existing variety in fenestration materials, styles and colours in the area the proposed leaded windows and doors would not appear out of place. Further, a condition could be imposed to ensure the quality of the chosen materials.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the CA and would not harm its significance. As such, I find no conflict with Policies GEN02, COM01 and ENV07 of the Breckland Local Plan (September 2023) which amongst other things require that development is of a high-quality design, preserving the character of the surrounding area.

Similarly, it would accord with the National Planning Policy Framework where it requires development to make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness whilst sustaining the significance of heritage assets.

The appeal scheme proposes a dwelling on a site that lies within the Zones of Influence (ZoI) for numerous Special Protection Areas (SPA), Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar Sites1, as set out within The Norfolk Green Infrastructure and [name] and [name] 2021 (GIRAMS) and updated by the [name] and Mitigation Strategy Action Plan 2024 (Action Plan).

The sites have varied qualifying features which can be summarised as including a variety of designated land, aquatic, coastal and other habitats that host a rich array of flora and fauna, including protected and important flora, invertebrates, mammals and amphibians, and over-wintering, migratory, breeding rare or vulnerable birds and internationally important assemblages.

The conservation objectives can be summarised as to maintain or restore the integrity of the sites by maintaining or restoring the extent, distribution, structure, function and supporting processes of the qualifying natural habitats and the habitats of the qualifying features and species, the population of the qualifying features, and the distribution of the qualifying features and species within the sites. 1 [name], [name], The Wash SPA, The Wash & [name], The Wash Ramsar, [name], [name], [name], Norfolk Valley Fens SAC, [name], [name], The Broads SAC and [name].

The Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2017 (the Regulations) require that the competent authority must ensure that there are no significant adverse effects from the proposed development, either alone or in combination with other projects, that would adversely affect the integrity of these sites. The effects arising from the proposal need to be considered in combination with other development in the area and adopting a precautionary approach.

The Action Plan states that an increase in recreational pressure on these sites is predicted to be linked with planned new residential development across multiple local authorities. Whilst the number of additional recreational visitors associated with each individual dwelling may be limited, in combination the planned level of residential development would have significant effects on the designated sites.

The appeal site is within ZoI where planned new residential development is likely to result in significant recreational pressure, which would have a likely significant effect on the interest features of the sites. Therefore, I consider that the development would be likely to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the sites.

The Action Plan sets out a strategic approach to mitigation by several councils across the wider area. It details mitigation measures that would be funded by financial contributions at a specified tariff per dwelling. Since these include a range of habitat-based measures such as education, communication, and monitoring, and have been endorsed by Natural England, I am satisfied that the measures would adequately mitigate any adverse effects of the proposal on the identified sites.

The appellant has submitted a planning obligation for a contribution of £304.17 towards recreational impact avoidance and mitigation alongside an administration and monitoring fee. Given the evidence before me I am satisfied that the mitigation measures have been secured and would be used for their intended purpose.

The contributions would be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development, in accordance with Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations. As such, the contributions toward the mitigation schemes would count as mitigation toward maintaining the integrity of the aforementioned sites, and I have taken account of the obligation in my considerations.

The appellant states that the Council is only able to demonstrate a 2.8 year housing land supply and the Council does not disagree.

The proposal would provide sufficient indoor and outdoor space for future users and due to the distances between dwellings, the limited height and the existing and proposed boundary treatments the living conditions of neighbouring residents would not be detrimentally affected. Updated ecological and arboricultural reports have been provided and ecology enhancements, tree protection can be secured via condition.

I have no substantiated evidence before me that the proposal would add to an existing flooding issue within the area. In addition, detailed drainage design can be secured via condition. Given the limited size of the plot, the type and scale of extensions which may be possible via permitted development are limited and as such it would be unreasonable to remove such rights.

I note concerns regarding traffic and the proposed access; whilst [address] and the access track is narrow, I have no substantiated evidence before me to indicated that adequate access would not be possible to allow for the proposal to be constructed and serviced in the future. Further, additional vehicle movements associated with one dwelling would be minimal and the details of the access, driveway, turning and parking areas can be secured via condition.

Boundary disputes are beyond the scope of this planning appeal and are not for me to comment on.

I have considered the conditions put forward by the Council against the Framework and where necessary I have combined and amended the wording in the interests of effectiveness and precision.

Aside from the statutory condition required to set the necessary time limit for development [1], a condition is required to indicate the approved plans to provide certainty [2].

A pre-commencement condition is necessary to ensure that the proposal can be adequately serviced by foul and surface water infrastructure [3].

Due to the appeal site’s location within the CA a condition is required to ensure the quality and aesthetic of the proposed materials [4]. Full details of the access, driveway, parking and turning areas are needed to ensure that the site is accessible by a range of vehicles and appropriate levels of parking are provided [5].

A condition is required to ensure compliance with best practice ecological and arboricultural recommendations made within the submitted reports [6] and ensure that adequate ecological enhancements are made in order to enhance biodiversity [7]. Similarly, a condition restricting external lighting is required to safeguard the sites ecology [8].

While Planning Practice Guidance states that conditions restricting the future use of permitted development rights often do not pass the test of reasonableness or necessity, given that the access is narrow and shared, in this instance, I am satisfied that it is necessary to prevent any future obstructions of the access, in order to safeguard highway safety [9].

Notwithstanding the Council’s housing land supply position, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would accord with the development plan as a whole and the Framework, and therefore the appeal is allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings: Location and [name] - A25-0022-002 [name] and Plans, Section & Elevations – A25-0022-002 [name].

No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision, implementation, ownership and maintenance of the foul and surface water drainage has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

No development above ground level shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

No development above ground level shall take place until details of the access, driveway, parking and turning areas have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The dwelling shall not be occupied until the access and driveway have been constructed in accordance with the approved details.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details set out within the [name], prepared by Margaret’s Ecology Ltd, dated 29 January 2026 and Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) and Tree Protection Plan (TPP) prepared by [name], dated January 2026.

No development above ground level shall take place until a [name] for protected, Priority and threatened species, prepared by a suitably qualified ecologist in line with the recommendations of the [name] (Margaret’s Ecology Ltd, January 2026), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy shall include the following: a) Purpose and conservation objectives for the proposed enhancement measures; b) detailed designs or product descriptions to achieve stated objectives; c) locations of proposed enhancement measures by appropriate maps and plans (where relevant); d) persons responsible for implementing the enhancement measures; and e) details of initial aftercare and long-term maintenance (where relevant). The works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details shall be retained in that manner thereafter.

Prior to occupation, a “lighting design strategy for biodiversity” in accordance with Guidance Note 08/23 (Institute of [name]) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall: a) identify those areas/features on site that are particularly sensitive for bats and that are likely to cause disturbance in or around their breeding sites and resting places or along important routes used to access key areas of their territory, for example, for foraging; and b) show how and where external lighting will be installed so that it can be clearly demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb or prevent the above species using their territory or having access to their breeding sites and resting places. All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and locations set out in the scheme and maintained thereafter in accordance with the scheme.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no gates, bollards, chains or other means of obstruction shall be erected across the approved access on the public highway.